alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 897 Referred in House (RFH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 897

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 3, 2011

             Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 
clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to 
use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid 
                       mine remediation programs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION.

    (a) Reclamation Fee.--Section 402(g)(6)(A) of the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(6)(A)) is 
amended by inserting ``and section 411(h)(1)'' after ``paragraphs (1) 
and (5)''.
    (b) Filling Voids and Sealing Tunnels.--Section 409(b) of the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) 
is amended by inserting ``and section 411(h)(1)'' after ``section 
402(g)''.
    (c) Use of Funds.--Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is 
amended by striking ``section 403'' and inserting ``section 402(g)(6), 
403, or 409''.

            Passed the Senate November 2, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 253 Lower Tribunal No. CF21

- 3995

- XX

_____________________________ D AVID J AMAL W ILSON , Appellant ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County

. Lori A. Winstead, Judge.
March 12, 2024

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

.
TRAVER , C

. J. , and WHITE and BROWNLEE , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clayton R. Kaeiser, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Samuel R. Mandelbaum, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTI L TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32454

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Donald A. DEVITO

Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 16 November 2017

________________________

Military Judge: Marvin W. Tubbs II.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 60 days, 

reduction to E-1, and forfeiture of $1,000.00 pay per month for 2 

months. Sentence adjudged 24 January 2017 by SpCM convened at 

Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma. 

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Judith A. Walker, USAF; Major Jarett Merk, USAF.

For Appellee: Major Mary Ellen Payne, USAF.

Before HARDING, SPERANZA, and HUYGEN, Appellate Military 

Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no 

error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 

866(c). 
United States v. DeVito, No. ACM S32454

2

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

KATHLEEN M. POTTER

Acting Clerk of the Court
#### DaimlerChrysler Insurance Company, as Subrogee of DCFS Trust, Respondent, v Leslie W. Jenneman, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 597]—

In an action to recover a settlement payment made in an underlying action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated May 5, 2010, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant, Leslie W. Jenneman, leased a Jeep Grand Cherokee from nonparty DCFS Trust. The plaintiff, Daimler-Chrysler Insurance Company, as subrogee of DCFS Trust, provided insurance coverage to DCFS Trust. While driving the Grand Cherokee on November 20, 2002, Jenneman struck and killed a pedestrian. She was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, and this Court affirmed *(see People v Jenneman,*37 AD3d 736 [2007]). The pedestrian’s estate sued Jenneman and DCFS Trust for wrongful death, and that case was settled for $200,000. The plaintiff paid $100,000 of that settlement and subsequently commenced this action against Jenneman to recover the sum it paid toward the settlement, alleging that it became subrogated to DCFS Trust’s right to common-law *929indemnification from Jenneman. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the complaint on the ground that Jenneman’s affirmed conviction entitled it to judgment as a matter of law. In an order dated May 5, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint. Jenneman appeals, and we affirm.

“[T]he key element of a common-law cause of action for indemnification is not a duty running from the indemnitor to the injured party, but rather is ‘a separate duty owed the indemnitee by the indemnitor’ ” *(Raquet v,Braun,*90 NY2d 177, 183 [1997], quoting *Mas v Two Bridges Assoc.,*75 NY2d 680, 690 [1990]). Indemnity “may be based upon an express contract, but more commonly the indemnity obligation is implied . . . based upon the law’s notion of what is fair and proper as between the parties” *(Mas v Two Bridges Assoc.,*75 NY2d at 690). “Where a criminal conviction is based upon facts identical to those in issue in a related civil action, the plaintiff in the civil action can successfully invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar the convicted defendant from relitigating the issue of . . . liability” *(McDonald v McDonald,*193 AD2d 590, 590 [1993]; *see City of New York v College Point Sports Assn., Inc.,*61 AD3d 33, 41 [2009]).

Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that collateral estoppel effect should be given to Jenneman’s conviction, and that, as subrogee of DCFS Trust, it is entitled to common-law indemnification from her *(see Blaich v Van Herwynen,*37 AD3d 387 [2007]). In opposition, Jenneman failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Jenneman’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
# C_2020103EN.01001101.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 17 December 2019 — Van Ameyde España S.A. v GES Seguros y Reaseguros S.A.

(Case C-923/19)

(2020/C 103/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Van Ameyde España S.A.

Defendant: GES Seguros y Reaseguros S.A.

Question referred

Does the final paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, read in conjunction with Article 1 of that directive, preclude an interpretation of national law (Article 5(2) of the Ley sobre responsabilidad civil y seguro en la circulación de vehículos a motor (Law on civil liability and insurance for the use of motor vehicles)) which, in cases such as that in the main proceedings, treats damage to the semi-trailer as being excluded from the cover provided by the compulsory insurance for the truck tractor or tractor unit, on the grounds that the semi-trailer is equated with items being transported in the truck tractor or tractor unit, or even that, for the purposes of damage to property, the semi-trailer forms a single vehicle with the truck tractor or tractor unit?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.

---
# C_2020027EN.01001702.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 22 October 2019 — 5th AVENUE Products Trading GmbH v Hauptzollamt Singen

(Case C-775/19)

(2020/C 27/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: 5th AVENUE Products Trading GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Singen

Questions referred

| 1. | Are payments which the purchaser of a product makes in addition to the purchase price, depending on his sales revenues, once a year for four years, in order to be able to sell the product






  — | in a particular territory, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Are payments which the purchaser of a product makes in addition to the purchase price, depending on his sales revenues, once a year for four years, in order to be able to sell the product

—

in a particular territory,

| — | for the very first time, |
| --- | --- |

—

for the very first time,

| — | exclusively and |
| --- | --- |

—

exclusively and

| — | permanently, |
| --- | --- |

—

permanently,

royalties and licence fees within the meaning of Article 32(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (CC) (1) which are to be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods under Article 32(5)(b) CC in conjunction with Article 157(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of the Customs Code (CCIR) (2)?

| 2. | Are such payments, where appropriate, to be added to the price paid or payable for the imported goods only on a proportional basis and, if so, on the basis of which criterion? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are such payments, where appropriate, to be added to the price paid or payable for the imported goods only on a proportional basis and, if so, on the basis of which criterion?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1)

---
# C_2023035EN.01004602.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2022 — PNB Banka v ECB

(Case T-330/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 22 of Directive 2013/36/EU - Opposition of the ECB to the acquisition of qualifying holdings in a credit institution - Starting point of the assessment period - Intervention by the ECB during the initial stage of the procedure - Criteria of financial stability of the proposed acquirer and compliance with prudential requirements - Existence of reasonable grounds for opposing the acquisition on the basis of one or more assessment criteria - Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure - Request for a hearing without a statement of reasons)

(2023/C 35/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, F. Bonnard and V. Hümpfner, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision, notified by letter of 21 March 2019, by which the European Central Bank (ECB) decided to oppose the transaction consisting of the acquisition of qualifying holdings in B.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PNB Banka AS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB);

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 39052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15647]



[[Page 39052]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute 
of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel. The 
meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as 
amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; Institutional Training 
Program (T32) Review SEP.
    Date: October 25, 2021.
    Time: 09:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, 6707 
Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: John K. Hayes, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 
National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 959 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3398, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#244c455d41574e6449454d480a4a4d4c0a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c646d75697f664c616d656022626564226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 19, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-15647 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 3.2**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF THE RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF CURAGEN CORPORATION**

 

It is hereby certified that: 

 

1.    The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the “Corporation”) is CuraGen Corporation. 

 

2.    The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed on November 22, 1991. A Restated Certificate of Incorporationfiled on March 23, 1998 (the “Restated Certificate”). 

 

3.    The Restated Certificate is hereby amended by striking out Article FOURTH Section A thereof in its entirety and by substituting in lieu of said Article the following new Article FOURTH Section A: 

 

*FOURTH:*

 

A.    Designation and Number of Shares. 

 

The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporationshall have the authority to issue is 258,000,000 shares, consisting of 250,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share (the “Common Stock”), 3,000,000 shares of non-voting common stock, par value $.01 per share (the“Non-Voting Common Stock”), and 5,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par value $.01 per share (the “Preferred Stock”). 

 

Each share of common stock, par value $.01 per share, of the Corporation issued and outstanding at the time and date that this Restated Certificate ofIncorporation becomes effective (the “Effective Time”) is hereby reclassified and changed, without any action on the part of the holders of any such common stock or on the part of the Corporation, into one share of fully paid andnonassessable Common Stock, and each person holding of record any shares of such common stock issued and outstanding at the Effective Time shall be entitled to receive, upon the surrender of certificates evidencing such shares to the Corporation,one or more certificates to evidence the number of shares of Common Stock into which such shares of common stock have been reclassified. 

 

A statement of the designations of the different classes of stock of the Corporation and of the powers, preferences and rights, and the qualifications,limitations or restrictions thereof, and of the authority conferred upon the Board of Directors to fix by resolution or resolutions any of the foregoing in connection with the creation of one or more series of Preferred Stock and the limitation ofvariations between or among such series, is set forth below in this Article FOURTH. 

 

4.    The Amendment of this Restated Certificate of Incorporation herein certified has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the Stateof Delaware. 

 

Signed this 25th day of May, 2000. 

 

David Wurzer 

Chief Financial Officer
# C_2020262EN.01002502.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/25

---

Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT Bar)

(Case T-563/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark PERFECT Bar - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character– Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2020/C 262/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J.L. Gracia Albero, R. Seoane Lacayo and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2019 (Case R 372/2019-5), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign PERFECT Bar as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | Orders Perfect Bar LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Perfect Bar LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0210

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN M. HILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 13, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 3 2023

01/03/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0210
#### Joan M. Dunnells, Respondent, v Leland K. Dunnells, Jr., Appellant.

—Mikoll, J.

Appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court at Trial Term (Crangle, J.), entered Becember 28, 1984 in Fulton County, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs motion to set aside a verdict in favor of defendant, and (2) from a judgment of said court, entered Becember 28, 1984 in Fulton County, which awarded plaintiff costs in the action.

Plaintiff sued defendant for a separation and defendant counterclaimed for divorce on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and abandonment. Plaintiff withdrew her action and the matter proceeded to trial by jury on defendant’s counterclaims. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for defendant on both grounds. The verdict was set aside on plaintiffs motion as being against the weight of evidence and a judgment of no cause of action was granted to plaintiff.

There should be an affirmance. The record is bereft of evidence supporting defendant’s contention. Plaintiff and defendant have been married for 32 years and have three grown children. The cruel and inhuman treatment complained of consisted of plaintiffs ordering defendant to leave their marital abode after an argument focusing on plaintiffs suspicions about defendant’s relationship with another woman and her accusations of infidelity. Befendant contended that plaintiffs diatribes so upset him as to cause emotional disturbance, loss of weight and inability to sleep. The record discloses that plaintiff requested defendant to return to their home shortly after ordering him out, that he resumed sexual relations with her, spent considerable time at the home, but continued to sleep at their son’s home and, later, in his own apartment.

The evidence fails to rise to the level of proof required for cruel and inhuman treatment *(see, Brady v Brady,*64 NY2d 339; *Hessen v Hessen,*33 NY2d 406). The marital strife was not extreme and certainly not of such character to affect or *962impair defendant’s health. The length of the marriage also affects the quality of the evidence *(id.).*By defendant’s own admission, plaintiff had cause for concern over defendant’s attentiveness to another woman. The record also fails to prove abandonment of defendant by plaintiff.

Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# C_2020027EN.01001701.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 October 2019 — Bartosch Airport Supply Services

(Case C-772/19)

(2020/C 27/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bartosch Airport Supply Services GmbH

Defendant: Zollamt Wien

Question referred

Is heading 8705 of the Combined Nomenclature (1) to be interpreted as meaning that towbarless motor vehicles with a pulling winch with belt pulling device for pulling aircraft and an electrohydraulic lifting device for pushing aircraft fall under this heading?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

---